That doesn't mean it's not hideous. And the fact that they are happening elsewhere gives credence to copperfiend's complaint about such designs being part of a 'movement'.

'Hideous' is quite subjective. It looks like a pretty typical interpretation of modern architecture to me.

And to me the phrase 'suburban looking apartment buildings' would refer to a site layout which features large setbacks, surface parking with continuous parking drives, separate buildings with limited massing and limited connections to adjacent property. Based on the site design of this property, I wouldn't consider this to be a 'suburban looking apartment building'.

Of course it's all subjective. I wouldn't consider that to be modern architecture though.

My read of his comments re 'suburban looking apartment buildings' was that he was referring to the architecture, not how they were situated on the land. But only he knows...

That doesn't mean it's not hideous. And the fact that they are happening elsewhere gives credence to copperfiend's complaint about such designs being part of a 'movement'.

'Hideous' is quite subjective. It looks like a pretty typical interpretation of modern architecture to me.

And to me the phrase 'suburban looking apartment buildings' would refer to a site layout which features large setbacks, surface parking with continuous parking drives, separate buildings with limited massing and limited connections to adjacent property. Based on the site design of this property, I wouldn't consider this to be a 'suburban looking apartment building'.

Of course it's all subjective. I wouldn't consider that to be modern architecture though.

My read of his comments re 'suburban looking apartment buildings' was that he was referring to the architecture, not how they were situated on the land. But only he knows...

You are correct. The architecture is very uninspiring.

And as Adam mentioned, very disposable.

It's like the Ikea version of an apartment building.

I think Ikea would honestly do a better job!

These sorts of buildings are everywhere! I almost took a photo of one on my way home from work last night. And it was a suburban one, to boot

I don't think it's too much to want inspiring or interesting architecture in the 'urban core' (or on the river, for that matter).

Logged

“If you're going to play it out of tune, then play it out of tune properly.”

Don't get me wrong, I don't think it's an inspiring design for a riverfront building by any means. That being said I think it would look much better if it were painted in shades of blue and white to match the rest of the buildings downtown. We kind of have a theme with the colors of our downtown buildings and it'd be nice to keep it going.

While I think the building could look better, I can't get THAT bent out of shape about it:

- It's an odd site with a very small amount of street frontage. The developers didn't create the site. - I'm not sure how (short of tearing the Old Prudential building down or significantly restructuring it) you can make it pedestrian friendly. Since I haven't seen too many people jumping up and down to demolish a building that's nearly full of tenants, I'd assume it's going to be there a good while. - If we get a Riverwalk extension out of it, that will be nice, though it's an awkward connection to the Friendship Fountain area and to the Fuller Warren area (shared use path).

No, it's the building across Prudential Avenue from Baptist Hospital. Technically, it's not the Aetna building anymore since Aetna punked out and moved to the southside It now has Baptist & OneCall's name on the top of it.

ah ha! Thank you. That makes perfect sense. I thought that tall building wasn't ( always ) part of a hospital complex with the parking lot. I just couldn't wrap my mind about where it was. That's an interesting place to squeeze in a couple hundred units. I don't think the residents there will appreciate the less than ideal rush hour traffic they'll deal with having only one way in and out on a street that normally backs up.

Probably because they are making less money per unit on the development now. There are a lot of fixed costs that aren't going to go down by shrinking the building (land cost, contractor mobilization, etc)

Maybe, maybe not. Most of the costs are not fixed. And a bunch of that cost goes up exponentially, not linearly, every story they go up beyond the first handful or so.

What is good news is this project will spur an extension of the southbank riverwalk. Does anyone know if the city has any plans for this?

Any chance it'll include a stairway connecting it with the Acosta Bridge sidewalks?

Just a random thought: Since Ventures Development Group compromised with GV-IP Jacksonville Owner LLC and lowered their building height and units down, I wish GV-IP Jacksonville Owner LLC would build out with private money the Riverwalk in front of their property just like how Ventures Development Group is building out in front of their property.

There's already a riverwalk there. It could be greatly improved, but it's already there. I wish some private money would go toward crossing the railroad tracks and under the acosta bridge. I'd rather connect what we have as soon as we can

I don't know what everyone hates on wood for these midrise buildings. Do you want them to build it out of concrete just because? Wood is a great choice in many applications. Inexpensive, strong, environmentally friendly, easily worked, etc.

I don't know what everyone hates on wood for these midrise buildings. Do you want them to build it out of concrete just because? Wood is a great choice in many applications. Inexpensive, strong, environmentally friendly, easily worked, etc.

I think a lot of the concern/dislike for wood is that it isn't built for permanence. From what I have been able to read about 40 years is the max. A concrete building will last forever. Then there is the noise level difference and energy efficiency as well.